What Entrenchment is Missing

I've finally been able to sit down and put some hours into Entrenchment, and would like to share my thoughts on where it could improve.

I'll start with starbases. I like everything about them and feel that they have been well implemented. I do find them lacking in what I would consider a few key upgrades...

1. Torpedo crusiers have one purpose IMO... anti-starbase ships. There is no other structure in the game that LRMs or HC couldn't handle with relative ease. That being said, I think that starbases need to have some sort of torpedo countermeasure upgrade. Not something that would render torpedos useless, but something that would give a SB a prayer if a player was spamming torpedo ships. Maybe a 1/4 or 1/3 damage reduction from torpedos.

2. I think SBs need anti-fighter capability, similar to the upgrade on the defensive emplacements. If a SB is going to be the pinnacle of defensive structures, they should be able to have flak turrets installed.

3. Starbases need the ability to inhibit phase jumps. This would increase their strategic value in uncolonizable systems tenfold.

I have one other thought on defensive emplacements. Given their available upgrades, I feel that a more modular approach would be a better way to go. In other words, give every turret a fixed number of hardpoints, and allow the player to choose how many and what type of weapon system he would like to install. All the reasearch requirements would stay the same, but at the same time you could essentially make three different types of turrets depending on need. At this point in time I feel that the platforms are a "do everything ok but nothing great" type of structure.

Maybe the defense upgrades to the SB's can also add the defenses to strikecraft and torps. Like 1st upgrade gives flak and 2nd one gives torp intercept lasers of some kind which would account for the 1/4 or 1/3 damage reduction.

3. Starbases need the ability to inhibit phase jumps. This would increase their strategic value in uncolonizable systems tenfold.

While you are right about their value in uncolonizable systems, that would make phase inhibitors worthless in other systems that host a starbase except as a backup. There seems to have been a deliberate design decision to make sure that starbases do not replace the existing tactical structures but supplement them, and that any module that mimics a defensive structure should provide about 10 tactical points worth (see hangars, vasari phase gate).

It might make sense for one faction to have it available as a faction specific module, but all those slots are already filled and with things relating more to the core phiolosophies of the factions.

I have one other thought on defensive emplacements. Given their available upgrades, I feel that a more modular approach would be a better way to go. In other words, give every turret a fixed number of hardpoints, and allow the player to choose how many and what type of weapon system he would like to install.

More micromanagement and harder to balance. While I'd probably find it fun if we could individually configure every single weapon hardpoint, I know that I, and others, would be working overtime to come up with degenerate solutions depending on just what we were facing, and that we'd find them. It leads to the usual issues of "if I allow you to build as many of X, Y, Z up to the sum being N, and somebody makes N X's and it turns out to be too effective, how do I change this without making other number of X's (say N/2 X') ineffective?" Cue diminishing returns, penalties for overstacking &etc. Given the focus of this SoaSE, adhering to the KISS principle where starbase construction, management, and maintainance is concernced is probably the best solution.

All the reasearch requirements would stay the same, but at the same time you could essentially make three different types of turrets depending on need. At this point in time I feel that the platforms are a "do everything ok but nothing great" type of structure.

In other words, a platform that's pretty capable of handling most things that are thrown at it rather than having glaring weaknesses against some types of attacks* - with the exception of the dedicated anti-structure vessels.**

* Such as lone heroes attacking critical weak spots without being hit because the defenses aren't trained to deal with their skill at maneuvering.

** And huge numbers of strikecraft, greater than the number you may, or may not, have chosen to put on the starbase. But then, if somebody attacks a starbase with huge numbers of strikecraft and the defender doesn't bring up anti strikecraft buildings, flak, or their own strikecraft, the starbase doesn't deserve to live.

I do agree that Starbases need proper anti-fighter swarm tech - either they get flak turrets or strikecraft should be nerfed to some extent against them. When you think about it, one little fighter is hardly going to do much damage to such a large structure (unless one happens to pop a photon torpedo down an exhaust port )

In playing for several hours the past weekend (albeit the crazy scientist mod), I think the starbases are pretty much perfect.

Starbases were never meant to be the be all end all (don't need another defensive structure in the well) platform. They were meant to make fleets think twice before engaging a planet and make it extemely difficult if you do choose to engage.

In playing I found that if I grouped my other defensive structures around my SB (as TEC/Advent since vasari SB Moves) it became almost impossible for the SB to be lost.

In regards to your comment about SB's in nuetral sectors, your anti-strike craft defense is your own strike craft. That is the beauty of only 8 upgrades. Do you go for full armor and weapons with only 4 or 8 strike craft or do you up the strike craft for lower hull/shields/armor? In my game I had a SB at a wormhole and in an asteroid belt. I was playing TEC and had both weapons upgrades, 3 infrastructure and 2 strikecraft, and 1 trade post upgrade. I was able to withstand two very large assaults from two different factions. My SB's lost all their shields and over 70% of their HP, but they survived. Would they have lasted against a human player? Probably not, but they did against two hard AI.

It just comes down to prioritizing the upgrades to match the opponent's strategy and keeping a small reinforcement fleet nearby to flank the enemy fleet and take out their carrier cruisers and any anti structure ships.

My only gripe is the lack of an anti structure unit for the Vasari. I can't build a SB in a well that already has one and how am I suppose to kill a well defended and upgraded SB without suffering dessimating losses?

It is one per player, though. So even if there's an enemy one, you can still build yours.

Having said that, beta 2.5 takes way too long to deploy a starbase in a hostile well, which makes it not feasible for anything that's defended with a mobile fleet (ie, when you really need a starbase there. )

I disagree, moreso because that for two of the races, the starbase cannot move. IMO once you put the required resources into a starbase and its position is permantly fixed, it should be the "be all end all" of defensive emplacements. It should by no means be invulnerable though.

Consider how much a fully upgraded SB costs , and know that there is 75% of a planets grav well that the SB cannot defend (TEC/Advent), and it seems a very expensive but easily avoidable defense, even with maxed SC.

Another thought: how about a mining upgrade?

And perhaps SB's should generate some form of tax income? In most ways they are already like a colony anyway.

I agree with Burnout, the SB should be a more defensively entrenched and potent structure. Those who want to make it just another chink in a rock-paper-scissors srtategy miss the point and degrade the entire idea of the 'Starbase as space-castle.' The starbase looses a great deal of its allure if we make it a castle in a 16th century European setting -- make it a castle-type unit in a 12th century respect and we have an entirely different story! (hopefully this historical reference is somehow useful...)

Come on Ironclad, we need a Flak buff and a reduction in build time for the Strike Craft! (instantly replacable FYI)

I disagree. A reduction in build time for SC would compound the SC spam problem at hand now.

However, given the proliferation of SC since the 1.1 update, I do feel that anti-SC weaponry and emplacements do need to be revisited. Right now there simply is no answer for SC spam. Flak frigates are helpless. And the numbers of fighters required to offset bomber spam greatly outnumber the available tactical slots for hangars as well as the max supported squads for a single SB in a planet grav well. Capital ships and SB's definitely need to have native or upgradeable anti-SC weaponry. As of now they are defenceless against them. This of course would unbalance the anti-fighter ability of the battleships, but that is why I am not a developer.

Im not sure I really want to see Starbases be significantly *tougher* to kill. As it is, a Starbase with 2 or more defensive upgrades with its bajillions of health and shield points takes a large toll on any but the very largest of fleets trying to kill it. Ultimately, all stationary defenses are meant to be speedbumps, not a replacement for a fleet. I find upgraded starbases far more annoying than even an equally sized mid game enemy fleet (unless I choose to just go around them...the easiest way to deal with all defenses in SINS).

If turtles were paranoid, they would live in burrows even thou they got shells on their backs. That's what these arguments feel like, you guys are bunch of paranoid turtles. A starbase already has anti strikecraft abiltiy, it's called a buttload of fighters! Alreadya prospect of running into fully upgraded starbase in an MP game is making me uneasy. You guys are jsut taking this turtle thing and running away with it.

How about an expensive lvl 8 research that adds one more upgrade slot to starbases? It would make them more powerfull without (hopefully) overpowering them.

And how about an anti-structure abilty upgrade for the Vasari LRM? The beta crashes when a starbase under construction comes under attack, so Vasari have serious problems against upgraded starbases, and even without crashing, it takes forever to build and upgrade a starbase in enemy gravitywell.

I just wanted to add my 2 cents! While I haven't played the Beta, knowing that a Starbase doesn't have any kind of Flak turrets sounds a bit weird to me. Imagine the Deathstar without any anti-fighter guns! Or better yet, anyone here played Freespace 2? Remember what it was like bombing the Satanas Class Juggernauth? The second you were in range for bombing, a dozen flak guns (and a very big one which was a secondary objective to take out) would try to tear you to pieces... ahh good times.

The Death Star guns took down at least 2 in the first movie. The X-wings in the trench got hit by them and blew up, also it generally made things difficult for them helping the Ties make micemeat out of them.

Starbases need FLAK GUNs, jesus come on. Who doesn't actually agree to this? I mean its not like they get a Planet Killing Death Ray! it's FLAK GUNS for Christ sake.

The easy answer for why Starbases need better anti-strikecraft ability is that a squad of Carriers will completely flatten a Starbase from the other side of the well, with no risk to itself whatsoever. Bring enough of them (20 bomber squads) and they can take down even a max defense Vasari base before it can cross the well. Incidentally a max defense Vasari Starbase also can't get enough strikecraft to actually make a difference.

Carriers right now are more effective then Adjudicators at taking out buildings, and they also happen to work at taking out ships at the same time. Aside from more carriers, there's no real defense against them (Flak Frigates are pretty pathetic right now).

I don't. There has not been a single good reason for why they *need* them presented.

This is the reason why. A small fleet of light carriers jump in, staying out of the SB's guns then releases their SC. They just chill at the extreme edge of the gravity well for 3-5 minutes, jumping out at any sign of trouble if needed. The Strike Craft, the SB has in its hangers are not enough to defeat the spam and unlike the spam fleet those SC can ONLY defend the SB making them much less usefull. Then the SB dies.

Wow, that flippin fantastic isn't it?

And it's all your fault for not wanting Flak guns. yes you.

If you can't see this, then you're a carrier spam fanboy. and again, what kind of STARBASE in any ficition has absolutely zero AA capability? Death Star without defense cannons?